John Curtis

I just want to echo those sentiments and caution the Commission from taking action that would attempt to shoehorn an old TV regulation into the growing MVPD marketplace.

We are going to need help from Congress to make sure we fully fund this program so that we can take this insecure Chinese equipment out of our Nation's networks.

I write in support of H.R. 3397, To require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw a rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to conservation and landscape health.

Then help me understand why you wouldn't hold a single public meeting.

To be clear, then, you are saying states with significant impact by this rule didn't need to be heard from, and that that was adequate. Is that what you are telling me?

Do you not feel that you have missed something here by not coming to the people in these good areas and getting their input?

Thank you for holding today's hearing and for the opportunity to share our support for this legislation.

I am writing in strong support of Congressman John Curtis' legislation, H.R. 3397.

I am incredibly surprised by how this rule came forward because of how it is established, and it is ignoring the long-set precedent that ranchers take every day to manage lands, and not asking for their input.

They are taking away all public input, potentially, in how they are going to create intact landscapes, which means the public will have no input, and they can immediately implement it overnight, which is not the authority of BLM.

When the former Congressman over here was chatting about conspiracy theories, this whole proposed rule is a conspiracy theory.

What is interesting to me is that, if you look at BLM and what their mission is, is that it specifically is to use the land, it is a land management agency, and it is supposed to consider conservation in every activity that it conducts.

I just want to point out that we are doing a very good job of preserving ourselves, and I am not sure that there is anything in this rule that will do a better job of preserving in the area.

I think my question is what would have been preserved, and particularly in the south, that was not preserved because this rule was not in place?

I am, unfortunately, out of time. Hopefully, you interpret from my results that we don't feel heard, that we feel like we are doing a very good job of conservation ourselves.

I will meet with your scheduler immediately, as soon as you are ready.

Are you willing to extend the comment period, given the fact that so many people have not been heard from?

How can Utah ranchers, farmers, and recreationalists have their voices heard, when you are not responding to our letters and you are not holding hearings?

If you go more specifically to my district, I don't have the specific numbers for BLM, but Federal lands represent about 90 percent, a high percentage of my district.

Let me be clear; my administration values the relationships we have with the Wyoming State BLM Office and the District and Field Office staff throughout the state.

The best solution is to rescind the rule.

This proposed rule was rushed forward without material input from Wyoming or other states.

I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.

Conservation means development as much as it does protection.

This rule undermines the work of real conservationists, like farmers and ranchers who have kept the land in good health for generations.